Run your car with water

[scopus tang]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2714254
How many power plants actually have had a melt down?
Now there is a good question ~ how many people are actually killed by unregistered guns? or liceansed cars? Chernobyl was of course the big one, the largest in the U.S. was Three Mile Island, then there was Greifswald in Germany, and Mihama in Japan (and those are only the ones that were serious enough that we know about them). The big issue here is not the meltdowns, although the risk is certainly real and certainly there, but what are we doing with the waste products that are being produced? They are being dumped somewhere, where? What kind of an effect are they having? Do you or does anyone care? What if they're being dumped in your backyard and no one has told you? Here are several interesting articles about the dumping of toxic waste from nuclear power plants.
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/04/20/8403/
http://www.dbc.uci.edu/~sustain/global/sensem/Lin99.htm
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...te-768490.html
http://www.studyworld.com/newsite/Re...ment-36947.htm

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by Scopus Tang
http:///forum/post/2714280
Now there is a good question ~ how many people are actually killed by unregistered guns? or liceansed cars? Chernobyl was of course the big one, the largest in the U.S. was Three Mile Island, then there was Greifswald in Germany, and Mihama in Japan (and those are only the ones that were serious enough that we know about them). The big issue here is not the meltdowns, although the risk is certainly real and certainly there, but what are we doing with the waste products that are being produced? They are being dumped somewhere, where? What kind of an effect are they having? Do you or does anyone care? What if they're being dumped in your backyard and no one has told you? Here are several interesting articles about the dumping of toxic waste from nuclear power plants.
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/04/20/8403/
http://www.dbc.uci.edu/~sustain/global/sensem/Lin99.htm
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...te-768490.html
http://www.studyworld.com/newsite/Re...ment-36947.htm
I'm all for just shooting it at the sun and letting it melt... After all the sun is just a giant nuke anyway...

 

[scopus tang]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2714301
I'm all for just shooting it at the sun and letting it melt... After all the sun is just a giant nuke anyway...
I agree that seems to be a good solution, and I usually propose it in my classes, which leads to some great discussion. Unfortunately, its not an economically feasible solution. And then of course there are those who would argue that doing so would cause reactions that could cause the sun to burn up or go Nova

.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by Scopus Tang
http:///forum/post/2714314
I agree that seems to be a good solution, and I usually propose it in my classes, which leads to some great discussion. Unfortunately, its not an economically feasible solution. And then of course there are those who would argue that doing so would cause reactions that could cause the sun to burn up or go Nova

.
Within the 100 years of what we are doing now it may be. The stuff is depleted... and there isn't a whole lot of it... It isn't as if this stuff will make it to the sun anyway, it is going to evaporate...

 

[scopus tang]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2714348
Within the 100 years of what we are doing now it may be. The stuff is depleted... and there isn't a whole lot of it... It isn't as if this stuff will make it to the sun anyway, it is going to evaporate...
How can it be depleted when we are constantly making more? Evaporate? how does radioactive material evaporate? Even if the radioactive water evaporates, the radioactive isotopes are still present - they don't just disappear. You do realize that a half-life of 125 years means that it takes 125 years for half the material to become non-radiactive (that of course means under idea degregation conditions - full sun, etc, not buried in the ground or floating in the ocean somewhere in a molecule of water that isn't going to evaporate for 1800 years) then in another 125 years half of that, etc? Doesn't mean that in 125 years its poof all gone, no more radiactive material.

 

[oscardeuce]

Originally Posted by Scopus Tang
http:///forum/post/2714365
How can it be depleted when we are constantly making more? Evaporate? how does radioactive material evaporate? Even if the radioactive water evaporates, the radioactive isotopes are still present - they don't just disappear. You do realize that a half-life of 125 years means that it takes 125 years for half the material to become non-radiactive (that of course means under idea degregation conditions - full sun, etc, not buried in the ground or floating in the ocean somewhere in a molecule of water that isn't going to evaporate for 1800 years) then in another 125 years half of that, etc? Doesn't mean that in 125 years its poof all gone, no more radiactive material.

I cannot seem to find an equasion relating the halflife to the external environment. The half life is related to the isotope and it's activity. I do not find the acitvity to be related to environmental factors either.
http://www.mcgill.ca/ehs/radiation/basics/decay/

 

[scopus tang]

Originally Posted by oscardeuce
http:///forum/post/2714519
I cannot seem to find an equasion relating the halflife to the external environment. The half life is related to the isotope and it's activity. I do not find the acitvity to be related to environmental factors either.
http://www.mcgill.ca/ehs/radiation/basics/decay/
Yep, you're right I was thinking temp and exposure to sunlight in terms of degredation of the container and miss stated (I apologize). Activity of decay of the isotopes will remain constant. Realize however, that we are using Uranium 235 in nuclear power plants, which itself has a half life of 7.04 x 10 to the 8th power ~ roughly 7 million years (to break down half the material) and converting that to radioactive isotopes with a decay rate of hundreds or even thousands of years. Which means several thousand or several million years to get it reduced to even 1/32 of the original amount ~ and it will never ever really go completely away. Like DDT, it will never truly go away (not in our conceivable future anyway), and as more and more of it is introduced into our environment will the environmental consequences bioaccumulate as well? One would tend to think so.

 

[oscardeuce]

Originally Posted by Scopus Tang
http:///forum/post/2714604
. Like DDT, it will never truly go away (not in our conceivable future anyway), and as more and more of it is introduced into our environment will the environmental consequences bioaccumulate as well? One would tend to think so.
DDT is not the devil it was made out to be. We may have killed millions by banning it.

 

[darknes]

Originally Posted by Scopus Tang
http:///forum/post/2714280
Now there is a good question ~ how many people are actually killed by unregistered guns? or liceansed cars? Chernobyl was of course the big one, the largest in the U.S. was Three Mile Island, then there was Greifswald in Germany, and Mihama in Japan (and those are only the ones that were serious enough that we know about them). The big issue here is not the meltdowns, although the risk is certainly real and certainly there, but what are we doing with the waste products that are being produced? They are being dumped somewhere, where? What kind of an effect are they having? Do you or does anyone care? What if they're being dumped in your backyard and no one has told you? Here are several interesting articles about the dumping of toxic waste from nuclear power plants.
Are you serious?? Where are you getting your information??
Nuclear power is safe, and clean, and renewable. Our plants in the US are VERY well protected and have enough backup safety systems in place that Chernobyl cannot happen. The ONLY meltdown that caused any harm to civilians was Chernobyl and that was because Russia didn't build it correctly. Should we close all factories in the US because factories in China are unsafe??
Also, there doesn't have to be nuclear waste. Bush is trying to reverse an old law banning reclycling nuclear material, but the dang libs are against it.

 

[scopus tang]

Originally Posted by Darknes
http:///forum/post/2714614
Are you serious?? Where are you getting your information??
Nuclear power is safe, and clean, and renewable. Our plants in the US are VERY well protected and have enough backup safety systems in place that Chernobyl cannot happen. The ONLY meltdown that caused any harm to civilians was Chernobyl and that was because Russia didn't build it correctly. Should we close all factories in the US because factories in China are unsafe??
Also, there doesn't have to be nuclear waste. Bush is trying to reverse an old law banning reclycling nuclear material, but the dang libs are against it.
Were are you getting your information from? Have you research it at all, or do you just believe the politacal hype. Renewable?! Where do you think Uranium 235 comes from? Who defines safe and clean? By what standard? I've seen automobiles that claim to be safe and clean as well (to a point).
Interesting view point; If I recall correctly prior to Chernobyl, every nuclear power plant was safe and had enough backup systems in place to insure that no nuclear meltdown would ever occur ~ then amazingly, Chernobyl occurred.
I'd be very curious to see any info you have on recycling radioactive wastes (that has actually been tested and used safely) ~ the recycling methods I've seen are opposed by scientists, and don't truly dispose of the waste, they simply shuffle the isotopes and waste still has to be disposed of. Regardless of whether or not there has to be, the issue is, that there is. And the storage and disposal runs in the billions of dollars, and untold environmental and biological damage. We're currently producing 2200 tons of nuclear waste per year. Yucca mt. if/when open will only store 77,000 tons. Then what?

 

[oscardeuce]

Originally Posted by Scopus Tang
http:///forum/post/2714652
Were are you getting your information from? Have you research it at all, or do you just believe the politacal hype. Renewable?! Where do you think Uranium 235 comes from? Who defines safe and clean? By what standard? I've seen automobiles that claim to be safe and clean as well (to a point).
Interesting view point; If I recall correctly prior to Chernobyl, every nuclear power plant was safe and had enough backup systems in place to insure that no nuclear meltdown would ever occur ~ then amazingly, Chernobyl occurred.
I'd be very curious to see any info you have on recycling radioactive wastes (that has actually been tested and used safely) ~ the recycling methods I've seen are opposed by scientists, and don't truly dispose of the waste, they simply shuffle the isotopes and waste still has to be disposed of. Regardless of whether or not there has to be, the issue is, that there is. And the storage and disposal runs in the billions of dollars, and untold environmental and biological damage. We're currently producing 2200 tons of nuclear waste per year. Yucca mt. if/when open will only store 77,000 tons. Then what?

Sure U235 is renewable....
In theory, you could use wind power to fire up a particle colliders and fuse a few nuclei into U235.
I used to be a State Certified Radiological Monitor, I've toured reactors and seen the systems. Nothing is 100%, but boy they sure try to come close. My best friend ran reactors on Navy subs, he gets less exposure on the sub than we do on the surface, much less on an airliner.

 

[groupergenius]

Wow...I get a temporary ban, although self-inflicted, for a thread going WAY off course...... look at it now.

If we want to discuss the evils and advantages of Nuclear power, I suggest a new thread be started.
My apologies again to the OP here.

 

[reefraff]

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf69.htm
Welcome to the 21st century

 

[scopus tang]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/2714943
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf69.htm
Welcome to the 21st century

have you read the link you're posting? They talk about taking radioactive isotopes that take hundreds of thousands of years and reorganizing them into isotopes that take only hundreds of years to become inert. Still have radioactive waste that has to be stored somewhere. Are you going to be alive in "hundreds of years?" What difference is it going to make if it only takes "hundreds of years rather than hundreds of thousands of years." You still haven't solved the big problem here which is mass accumulation of radioactive waste, especially if we bring more nuclear power plants on line than we are currently running.
Originally Posted by oscardeuce
http:///forum/post/2714730
Sure U235 is renewable....
In theory, you could use wind power to fire up a particle colliders and fuse a few nuclei into U235.
Seriously, if thats how you're going to define renewable, than coal is a renewable resource as well, all we need to do is use enough electricity (wind generated) to create the heat and pressure we need to reduce organic material to coal.
Originally Posted by oscardeuce
http:///forum/post/2714730
I used to be a State Certified Radiological Monitor, I've toured reactors and seen the systems. Nothing is 100%, but boy they sure try to come close. My best friend ran reactors on Navy subs, he gets less exposure on the sub than we do on the surface, much less on an airliner.
I have no doubt, but still doesn't solve the issue of disposal of radioactive waste which is going to be generated regardless of whether we are "recycling" those wastes or not. I can remember when filtered cigerettes were defined as clean and safe, and cigerette companies will still argue that their product has never been actually proven to cause cancer, only that smoking increases the risk.
Nuclear power plants may not be the risk that they once were, but nuclear power (Uranium235) is not a renewable resource, it is not environmentally friendly (because of the waste product produced), and it isn't green. Now I'm afraid you'll have to excuse me, because I'm leaving for a vacation and have to bow out of this discussion.

 

[groupergenius]

Originally Posted by Nel621
http:///forum/post/2690824
Has anyone on this site tried this or know of anyone who has converted their car to run on gas AND water?There are alot of new products out there that claim you can run your car on water and increase gas milage.what is your opinion?

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/2714943
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf69.htm
Welcome to the 21st century

Originally Posted by Scopus Tang
http:///forum/post/2714980

have you read the link you're posting? They talk about taking radioactive isotopes that take hundreds of thousands of years and reorganizing them into isotopes that take only hundreds of years to become inert. Still have radioactive waste that has to be stored somewhere. Are you going to be alive in "hundreds of years?" What difference is it going to make if it only takes "hundreds of years rather than hundreds of thousands of years." You still haven't solved the big problem here which is mass accumulation of radioactive waste, especially if we bring more nuclear power plants on line than we are currently running.

Again, Please....no correlation. Start a new thread.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by Scopus Tang
http:///forum/post/2714980

have you read the link you're posting? They talk about taking radioactive isotopes that take hundreds of thousands of years and reorganizing them into isotopes that take only hundreds of years to become inert. Still have radioactive waste that has to be stored somewhere. Are you going to be alive in "hundreds of years?" What difference is it going to make if it only takes "hundreds of years rather than hundreds of thousands of years." You still haven't solved the big problem here which is mass accumulation of radioactive waste, especially if we bring more nuclear power plants on line than we are currently running.
.
Did you read where they are recycling the material to the point that only on fifth of the material actually ends up being "disposed" of and that material would no longer have any value for a bomb? Making the material less hot decreases the likelyhood it will cause an environmental hazzard even if it does still take several hundred years to become "safe".